Difficulties in Performing Daily Activities in Patients with Dry Eye before and after Treatment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- -
- Normal contrast sensitivity—the patient can read 33 letters or more;
- -
- Subnormal sensitivity—the patient can read between 27 and 32 letters;
- -
- Poor sensitivity—the patient can read less than 26 letters;
- -
- 0 sensitivity—the patient cannot read anything.
3. Results
3.1. Item I1: Difficulties in Reading a Newspaper Text
3.2. Item I2: Recognition of People Met
3.3. Item I3: Difficulties in Reading Prices
- -
- Up to a spatial frequency of 4.24 cycles/grade, there are increases in average contrast sensitivity values with no significant differences in patients with minimal visual difficulties in reading prices compared to those who do not report such difficulties;
- -
- At a spatial frequency of 4.24 cycles/grade, there is a significantly lower average contrast sensitivity value in patients with minimal difficulty reading shopping prices (124.69 vs 142.96; p = 0.026);
- -
- After this frequency, the regression of contrast sensitivity begins, but the average level is significantly lower in patients with visual reading difficulties (p < 0.05).
3.4. Item I4: Vision Difficulties When Walking on Uneven Ground
3.5. Item I5: Visual Difficulties during Manual Work
3.6. Item I6: Difficulties Reading a Text on TV
3.7. Item I7: Vision Difficulties during Favorite Activities
- -
- Men report very high visual difficulties (54.7%), while women report high difficulties (61.4%) (p = 0.044);
- -
- The proportion of patients over 70 years of age with high and very high visual difficulties while performing their favorite activities was slightly higher when compared to patients under 70 years of age (p = 0.881).
- -
- Up to the spatial frequency of 3 cycles/degree, there are significantly higher average contrast sensitivity values in patients with minimal visual difficulties compared to those not reporting such difficulties (173.33 vs 137.46; p = 0.013);
- -
- After this frequency, there is a regression of average values, the contrast sensitivity being slightly lower in patients with minimal visual difficulties during favorite activities without being statistically significant (p > 0.05).
3.8. Item I8: Considerations on Visual Difficulties in Daily Activities
3.9. Item I9: Degree of Satisfaction with Seeing
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Papas, E.B. The global prevalence of dry eye disease: A Bayesian view. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2021, 41, 1254–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, J.; Wu, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, J.; Lu, L.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, G.; et al. Dry Eye Disease Among Mongolian and Han Older Adults in Grasslands of Northern China: Prevalence, Associated Factors, and Vision-Related Quality of Life. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 788545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- García-Marqués, J.V.; Talens-Estarelles, C.; García-Lázaro, S.; Wolffsohn, J.S.; Cerviño, A. Systemic, environmental and lifestyle risk factors for dry eye disease in a mediterranean caucasian population. Contact Lens Anterior Eye J. Br. Contact Lens Assoc. 2021, 45, 101539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrand, K.F.; Fridman, M.; Stillman, I.O.; Schaumberg, D.A. Prevalence of Diagnosed Dry Eye Disease in the United States Among Adults Aged 18 Years and Older. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 182, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- O’Neil, E.C.; Henderson, M.; Massaro-Giordano, M.; Bunya, V.Y. Advances in dry eye disease treatment. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2019, 30, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moss, S.E.; Klein, R.; Klein, B.E. Incidence of dry eye in an older population. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2004, 22, 369–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shimazaki, J. Definition and Diagnostic Criteria of Dry Eye Disease: Historical Overview and Future Directions. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018, 59, DES7–DES12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Milner, M.S.; Beckman, K.A.; Luchs, J.I.; Allen, Q.B.; Awdeh, R.M.; Berdahl, J.; Boland, T.S.; Buznego, C.; Gira, J.P.; Goldberg, D.F.; et al. Dysfunctional tear syndrome: Dry eye disease and associated tear film disorders-new strategies for diagnosis and treatment. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2017, 27, 3–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arif, S.A.; Khan, M.I.; Abid, M.S.; Babar, A.; Arif, M.A.; Jahanzaib, H.M.; Khan, I. Frequency and impact of individual symptoms on quality of life in dry eye disease in patients presenting to a tertiary care hospital. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2021, 71, 1063–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathews, P.M.; Ramulu, P.Y.; Swenor, B.S.; Utine, C.A.; Rubin, G.S.; Akpek, E.K. Functional impairment of reading in patients with dry eye. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 101, 481–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karakus, S.; Mathews, P.M.; Agrawal, D.; Henrich, C.; Ramulu, P.Y.; Akpek, E.K. Impact of Dry Eye on Prolonged Reading. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2018, 95, 1105–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mason, L.; Jafri, S.; Dortonne, I.; Sheppard, J.D., Jr. Emerging therapies for dry eye disease. Expert Opin. Emerg. Drugs 2021, 26, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The definition and classification of dry eye disease: Report of the Definition and Classification Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop (2007). Ocul. Surf. 2007, 5, 75–92. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kawashima, M. Systemic Health and Dry Eye. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018, 59, DES138–DES142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mangione, C.M.; Berry, S.; Spritzer, K.; Janz, N.K.; Klein, R.; Owsley, C.; Lee, P.P. Identifying the content area for the National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ): Results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1998, 116, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mangione, C.M.; Lee, P.P.; Gutierrez, P.R.; Spritzer, K.; Berry, S.; Hays, R.D. National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire Field Test Investigators. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2001, 119, 1050–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mangione, C.M.; Lee, P.P.; Pitts, J.; Gutierrez, P.; Berry, S.; Hays, R.D. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). NEI-VFQ Field Test Investigators. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1998, 116, 1496–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kojima, T.; Dogru, M.; Kawashima, M.; Nakamura, S.; Tsubota, K. Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of dry eye. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2020, 78, 100842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javadi, M.A.; Feizi, S. Dry eye syndrome. J. Ophthalmic Vis. Res. 2011, 6, 192–198. [Google Scholar]
- Schein, O.D.; Muñoz, B.; Tielsch, J.M.; Bandeen-Roche, K.; West, S. Prevalence of dry eye among the elderly. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1997, 124, 723–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schaumberg, D.A.; Sullivan, D.A.; Buring, J.E.; Dana, M.R. Prevalence of dry eye syndrome among US women. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2003, 136, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schaumberg, D.A.; Dana, R.; Buring, J.E.; Sullivan, D.A. Prevalence of dry eye disease among US men: Estimates from the Physicians’ Health Studies. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2009, 127, 763–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schein, O.D.; Hochberg, M.C.; Muñoz, B.; Tielsch, J.M.; Bandeen-Roche, K.; Provost, T.; Anhalt, G.J.; West, S. Dry eye and dry mouth in the elderly: A population-based assessment. Arch. Intern. Med. 1999, 159, 1359–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paulsen, A.J.; Cruickshanks, K.J.; Fischer, M.E.; Huang, G.H.; Klein, B.E.; Klein, R.; Dalton, D.S. Dry eye in the beaver dam offspring study: Prevalence, risk factors, and health-related quality of life. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2014, 157, 799–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chia, E.M.; Mitchell, P.; Rochtchina, E.; Lee, A.J.; Maroun, R.; Wang, J.J. Prevalence and associations of dry eye syndrome in an older population: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2003, 31, 229–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McCarty, C.A.; Bansal, A.K.; Livingston, P.M.; Stanislavsky, Y.L.; Taylor, H.R. The epidemiology of dry eye in Melbourne, Australia. Ophthalmology 1998, 105, 1114–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lamberts, D.W.; Foster, C.S.; Perry, H.D. Schirmer test after topical anesthesis and the tear menius height in normal eyes. ArchOphthalmology 1979, 97, 1082–1085. [Google Scholar]
- de Paiva, C.S. Effects of Aging in Dry Eye. Int. Ophthalmol. Clin. 2017, 57, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tong, L.; Waduthantri, S.; Wong, T.Y.; Saw, S.M.; Wang, J.J.; Rosman, M.; Lamoureux, E. Impact of symptomatic dry eye on vision-related daily activities: The Singapore Malay Eye Study. Eye 2010, 24, 1486–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miljanović, B.; Dana, R.; Sullivan, D.A.; Schaumberg, D.A. Impact of dry eye syndrome on vision-related quality of life. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2007, 143, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Uchino, M.; Schaumberg, D.A.; Dogru, M.; Uchino, Y.; Fukagawa, K.; Shimmura, S.; Satoh, T.; Takebayashi, T.; Tsubota, K. Prevalence of dry eye disease among Japanese visual display terminal users. Ophthalmology 2008, 115, 1982–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goto, E.; Yagi, Y.; Matsumoto, Y.; Tsubota, K. Impaired functional visual acuity of dry eye patients. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2002, 133, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, M.; Gong, L.; Chapin, W.J.; Zhu, M. Assessment of vision-related quality of life in dry eye patients. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012, 53, 5722–5727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gomes, J.A.P.; Santo, R.M. The impact of dry eye disease treatment on patient satisfaction and quality of life: A review. Ocul. Surf. 2019, 17, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grubbs, J.R., Jr.; Tolleson-Rinehart, S.; Huynh, K.; Davis, R.M. A review of quality of life measures in dry eye questionnaires. Cornea 2014, 33, 215–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Magno, M.S.; Utheim, T.P.; Snieder, H.; Hammond, C.J.; Vehof, J. The relationship between dry eye and sleep quality. Ocul. Surf. 2021, 20, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsahly, R.J.; Aldawsari, A.A.; Alzaidy, N.F.; Al Jabr, F.A.; Alotaibi, M.M.; Mohammed, E.Y. Dry Eye Disease Symptoms and Its Association with Daily Beverage Intake Among Adults in Saudi Arabia. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2022, 16, 453–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szczotka-Flynn, L.B.; Maguire, M.G.; Ying, G.S.; Lin, M.C.; Bunya, V.Y.; Dana, R.; Asbell, P.A. Impact of Dry Eye on Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity: Dry Eye Assessment and Management Study. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2019, 96, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ridder, W.H., 3rd; Zhang, Y.; Huang, J.F. Evaluation of reading speed and contrast sensitivity in dry eye disease. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2013, 90, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Age Group | Patients Who Underwent Invasive Procedures | Patients Who Underwent Drug Treatment | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | n | % | N | n | % | N | N | % | |
<50 years | 40 | 9 | 22.5 | 49 | 12 | 24.5 | 89 | 21 | 23.6 |
60–69 years | 21 | 6 | 28.6 | 49 | 17 | 34.7 | 70 | 23 | 32.9 |
70–79 years | 41 | 22 | 53.7 | 96 | 18 | 18.8 | 137 | 40 | 29.2 |
≥80 years | 15 | 12 | 80.0 | 37 | 25 | 67.6 | 52 | 37 | 71.2 |
Total | 117 | 49 | 41.9 | 231 | 72 | 31.2 | 348 | 121 | 34.8 |
Characteristics | Very High Difficulty | High Difficulty | Minimal Difficulty | No Difficulty | p Values | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | N | % | ||
Pre-treatment | 85 | 70.2 | 28 | 23.1 | 7 | 5.7 | 1 | 0.8 | - |
Gender | 0.253 | ||||||||
Male | 42 | 49.4 | 9 | 32.1 | 4 | 57.1 | 1 | 100.0 | |
Female | 43 | 50.6 | 19 | 67.9 | 3 | 42.9 | - | - | |
Age group | 0.396 | ||||||||
<70 years | 38 | 44.7 | 8 | 28.6 | 3 | 42.9 | - | - | |
70+ years | 47 | 55.3 | 20 | 71.4 | 4 | 57.1 | 1 | 100.0 | |
Post-treatment | 0.223 | ||||||||
Minimal difficulty | 13 | 15.3 | 8 | 28.6 | - | - | - | - | |
No difficulty | 72 | 84.7 | 20 | 71.4 | 7 | 100.0 | 1 | 100.0 |
Characteristics | Very High Difficulty | High Difficulty | Minimal Difficulty | No Difficulty | p Values | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | N | % | n | % | n | % | ||
Pre-treatment | 84 | 61.2 | 31 | 25.6 | 14 | 11.6 | 2 | 1.7 | - |
Gender | 0.700 | ||||||||
Male | 35 | 47.3% | 12 | 38.7% | 8 | 57.1% | 1 | 50.0% | |
Female | 39 | 52.7% | 19 | 61.3% | 6 | 42.9% | 1 | 50.0% | |
Age group | 0.958 | ||||||||
<70 years | 31 | 41.9% | 12 | 38.7% | 5 | 35.7% | 1 | 50.0% | |
70+ years | 43 | 58.1% | 19 | 61.3% | 9 | 64.3% | 1 | 50.0% | |
Post-treatment | 0.444 | ||||||||
Minimal difficulty | 5 | 6.8 | 4 | 12.9 | - | - | - | - | |
No difficulty | 69 | 93.2 | 27 | 87.1 | 14 | 100.0 | 2 | 100.0 |
Characteristics | Very High Difficulty | High Difficulty | Minimal Difficulty | No Difficulty | p Values | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | N | % | n | % | N | % | ||
Pre-treatment | 89 | 73. | 21 | 17.4 | 8 | 8.3 | 1 | 0.8 | - |
Gender | 0.178 | ||||||||
Male | 37 | 41.6 | 12 | 57.1 | 7 | 70.0 | - | - | |
Female | 52 | 58.4 | 9 | 42.9 | 3 | 30.0 | 1 | 100.0 | |
Age group | 0.410 | ||||||||
<70 years | 39 | 43.8 | 8 | 38.1 | 2 | 20.0 | - | - | |
70+ years | 50 | 56.2 | 13 | 61.9 | 8 | 80.0 | 1 | 100.0 | |
Post-treatment | 0.050 | ||||||||
Minimal difficulty | 36 | 40.4% | 6 | 28.6% | - | - | - | - | |
No difficulty | 53 | 59.6% | 15 | 71.4% | 10 | 100.0% | 1 | 100.0% |
Characteristics | Very High Difficulty | High Difficulty | Minimal Difficulty | No Difficulty | p Values | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
Pre-treatment | 76 | 62.8 | 31 | 25.6 | 12 | 9.9 | 2 | 1.7 | - |
Gender | 0.209 | ||||||||
Male | 32 | 42.1% | 14 | 45.2% | 9 | 75.0% | 1 | 50.0% | |
Female | 44 | 57.9% | 17 | 54.8% | 3 | 25.0% | 1 | 50.0% | |
Age group | 0.631 | ||||||||
<70 years | 32 | 42.1% | 13 | 41.9% | 4 | 33.3% | - | - | |
70+ years | 44 | 57.9% | 18 | 58.1% | 8 | 66.7% | 2 | 100.0% | |
Post-treatment | 0.965 | ||||||||
Minimal difficulty | 6 | 7.9% | 3 | 9.7% | 1 | 8.3% | - | - | |
No difficulty | 70 | 92.1% | 28 | 90.3% | 11 | 91.7% | 2 | 100.0% |
Characteristics | Very High Difficulty | High Difficulty | Minimal Difficulty | No Difficulty | p Values | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
Pre-treatment | 81 | 66.9 | 32 | 26.4 | 8 | 6.6 | - | - | - |
Gender | 0.358 | ||||||||
Male | 34 | 42.0 | 17 | 53.1 | 5 | 62.5 | - | - | |
Female | 47 | 58.0 | 15 | 46.9 | 3 | 37.5 | - | - | |
Age group | 0.647 | ||||||||
<70 years | 34 | 42.0 | 13 | 40.6 | 2 | 25.0 | - | - | |
70+ years | 47 | 58.0 | 19 | 59.4 | 6 | 75.0 | - | - | |
Post-treatment | 0.399 | ||||||||
Minimal difficulty | 12 | 14.8 | 3 | 9.4 | - | - | - | - | |
No difficulty | 69 | 85.2 | 29 | 90.6 | 8 | 100.0 | - | - |
Characteristics | Very High Difficulty | High Difficulty | Minimal Difficulty | No Difficulty | p Values | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
Pre-treatment | 77 | 63.6 | 35 | 28.9 | 9 | 7.4 | - | - | - |
Gender | 0.606 | ||||||||
Male | 35 | 45.5 | 18 | 51.4 | 3 | 33.3 | - | - | |
Female | 42 | 54.5 | 17 | 48.6 | 6 | 66.7 | - | - | |
Age group | 0.554 | ||||||||
<70 years | 34 | 44.2 | 12 | 34.3 | 3 | 33.3 | - | - | |
70+ years | 43 | 55.8 | 23 | 65.7 | 6 | 66.7 | - | - | |
Post-treatment | 0.233 | ||||||||
Minimal difficulty | 10 | 13.0% | 2 | 5.7% | - | - | - | - | |
No difficulty | 67 | 87.0% | 33 | 94.3% | 9 | 100.0% | - | - |
Characteristics | Very High Difficulty | High Difficulty | Minimal Difficulty | No Difficulty | p Values | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
Pre-treatment | 53 | 43.4 | 58 | 47.5 | 7 | 5,7 | 4 | 3.3 | - |
Gender | 0.044 | ||||||||
Male | 29 | 54.7% | 22 | 38.6% | 5 | 71.4% | - | - | |
Female | 24 | 45.3% | 35 | 61.4% | 2 | 28.6% | 4 | 100.0% | |
Age group | 0.881 | ||||||||
<70 years | 23 | 43.4% | 21 | 36.8% | 3 | 42.9% | 2 | 50.0% | |
70+ years | 30 | 56.6% | 36 | 63.2% | 4 | 57.1% | 2 | 50.0% | |
Post-treatment | 0.856 | ||||||||
Minimal difficulty | 2 | 3.8% | 1 | 1.8% | - | - | - | - | |
No difficulty | 51 | 96.2% | 56 | 98.2% | 7 | 100.0% | 4 | 100.0% |
Characteristics | Very High Difficulty | High Difficulty | Minimal Difficulty | No Difficulty | p Values | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
Pre-treatment | 62 | 63.6 | 49 | 28.9 | 10 | 7.4 | - | - | - |
Gender | 0.044 | ||||||||
Male | 28 | 45.2% | 22 | 44.9% | 6 | 60.0% | - | - | |
Female | 34 | 54.8% | 27 | 55.1% | 4 | 40.0% | - | - | |
Age group | 0.881 | ||||||||
<70 years | 27 | 43.5% | 18 | 36.7% | 4 | 40.0% | - | - | |
70+ years | 35 | 56.5% | 31 | 63.3% | 6 | 60.0% | - | - | |
Post-treatment | 0.056 | ||||||||
Minimal difficulty | 14 | 22.6% | 3 | 6.1% | 2 | 20.0% | - | - | |
No difficulty | 48 | 77.4% | 46 | 93.9% | 8 | 80.0% | - | - |
Characteristics | N | Average | Standard Deviation | Standard Error | Confidence Range | Min | Max | p Value Test F | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
−95% CI | +95% CI | ||||||||
Gender | |||||||||
Male | 56 | 19.91 | 4.55 | 0.609 | 18.69 | 21.13 | 7 | 24 | 0.571 |
Female | 65 | 20.32 | 3.42 | 0.424 | 19.48 | 21.17 | 7 | 24 | |
Total | 121 | 20.13 | 3.97 | 0.361 | 19.42 | 20.85 | 7 | 24 | |
Age group | |||||||||
<70 years | 49 | 20.61 | 3.61 | 0.516 | 19.58 | 21.65 | 8 | 24 | 0.275 |
70+ years | 72 | 19.81 | 4.20 | 0.494 | 18.82 | 20.79 | 7 | 24 | |
Total | 121 | 20.13 | 3.97 | 0.361 | 19.42 | 20.85 | 7 | 24 | |
Degree of satisfaction (pre-treatment) | |||||||||
Very dissatisfied | 72 | 21.72 | 2.86 | 0.338 | 21.05 | 22.40 | 9 | 24 | 0.001 |
Dissatisfied | 43 | 18.44 | 3.76 | 0.574 | 17.28 | 19.60 | 7 | 24 | |
Satisfied | 3 | 10.33 | 4.93 | 2.848 | −1.92 | 22.59 | 7 | 16 | |
Very satisfied | 3 | 16.00 | 3.46 | 2.000 | 7.39 | 24.61 | 14 | 20 | |
Total | 121 | 20.13 | 3.97 | 0.361 | 19.42 | 20.85 | 7 | 24 |
Score | N | Average | Standard Deviation | Standard Error | Confidence Range | Min | Max | p Value Test F | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
−95% CI | +95% CI | ||||||||
Pre-treatment | 121 | 20.13 | 3.973 | 0.361 | 19.42 | 20.85 | 7 | 24 | 0.001 |
Post-treatment | 121 | 1.08 | 1.333 | 0.121 | 0.84 | 1.32 | 0 | 6 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Martinescu, G.; Bogdanici, C.M.; Pavel, I.A.; Ciocoiu, M. Difficulties in Performing Daily Activities in Patients with Dry Eye before and after Treatment. Medicina 2023, 59, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59010025
Martinescu G, Bogdanici CM, Pavel IA, Ciocoiu M. Difficulties in Performing Daily Activities in Patients with Dry Eye before and after Treatment. Medicina. 2023; 59(1):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59010025
Chicago/Turabian StyleMartinescu, Gabriel, Camelia Margareta Bogdanici, Irina Andreea Pavel, and Manuela Ciocoiu. 2023. "Difficulties in Performing Daily Activities in Patients with Dry Eye before and after Treatment" Medicina 59, no. 1: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59010025